Jury finds ex-teacher innocent

By Georgann Yara
Staff Writer

Richard Martin was found not guilty of assault and sexual abuse by a Maricopa County Superior Court jury Thursday.

The panel of two men and six women took two-and-a-half hours to determine that the former Desert Vista High School music teacher did not grope a 16-year-old female student last year.

After the verdict was read, Martin was hugged by his teary-eyed wife, Gisa.

“It was a toss of a coin. They could have been offended by the conversation, but instead they focused on raw facts.” Martin said.

Before Judge Jonathan Schwartz released the jury to begin its deliberations, defense attorney John Gaertner and deputy county attorney Monica Gellman were confident that an audio recording of a conversation between Martin and the girl supported their respective arguments.

Despite the admitted inappropriate comments made by Martin and captured on tape, the verdict shows jurors separated sexual words from sexual acts.

With no eyewitnesses and little physical evidence, both attorneys agreed this case would rest on credibility. During trial, the accuser’s reputation for not being truthful was raised by Gaertner and his witnesses.

In March, Martin 61, was fired from the Tempe Union High School District after the girl made allegations that the teacher groped her and had graphic conversations with her. Since then, he has surrendered his teaching certificate with the Arizona Department of Education.

Martin had always maintained his innocence since pleading not guilty to the charges at his April 15 arraignment. He also turned town a plea offer from the prosecution this summer.

Before going home Thursday, the electronic monitoring device that Martin had been wearing since his arraignment was removed.

Commenting on the media coverage of his case, Martin said, “It’s better to be judged by a jury of your peers instead of a jury of reporters.”

Consoled by her father after the verdict was read, the now 17 –year-old teen stood by her accounts of the events saying, “read the transcript.”

Holding back tears welling in her eyes, she added, “It ends for everyone after the verdict. But it never ends for me.”

Day One

Opening arguments

Maricopa County Deputy Attorney Monica Gellman describes Richard Martin as a teacher who “stepped over the line,” when sexually graphic conversations with a 16-year-old female student progressed into groping and an attempted kiss in a classroom closet. She tells the jury that “the facts are subtle,” and that confessions or eyewitnesses to events do not exist in this case, and that the girl first told no one about Martin’s actions because she thought if she ignored him, it would stop.

Defense attorney John Gaertner admits his client should not have had at least one inappropriate conversation with the then-high school junior, which was recorded on tape and later played for the jury. But he tells jurors that “words in this case are not a crime,” and that they would have to determine whether words turned into action, something Martin contends did not happen. Gaertner also says that even while the illicit conversation was being taped without Martin’s knowledge, his client denied touching the girl in the conversation. Gaertner tells jurors his list of witnesses include Desert Vista students whose testimonies will question the credibility of the accuser.

Victim testimony

The girl, now 17, cries throughout much of her time on the stand and relays in detail several incidents occurring before the Thanksgiving break through the winter break 2002, when she says Martin talked to her about sex, his experiences at a nude spa, an affair with the neighbor and asked questions about her sex life. She also talks about being groped by Martin and his hand grazing over her rear during a hug.

She says she tried to avoid the teacher and didn’t tell anyone about the incidents because she didn’t want to get him into trouble and that she tried to make herself believe the well-liked teacher wasn’t actually behaving this way. She says the last straw was in late January when she says Martin admired her spaghetti-strap top and asked her to show him her breasts, to which she refused.

Conflicting Reports

On Cross-examination, Gaertner questions the timing of certain events the victim claimed had happened and discovers a change in testimony offered by the victim during a pre-trial hearing and a February interview with Phoenix police, which was videotaped. There is confusion over which hand the girl claims Martin groped her with. Gellman admits she too was confused about exactly how Martin touched the girl even after reexamining the video of the interview on Nov. 28 and was aware of the uncertainty when she questioned the girl on the stand.

Gaertner requests the case be dismissed on the grounds of a discovery violation and passionately argues that if such a detail were to go undetected, it would jeopardize the case for his client.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Schwarts denies the motion for dismissal. He agrees it is discovery violation but at this time is not sure to the extent or impact of the violation.

Jury’s last words

Gellman plays the audiotape of the Feb. 5 conversation between the girl and Martin. In the recording, he denies ever touching her breast, but says that he would have “love to”. Jurors also heard his comments about his doubts that she was wearing a bra with a blouse he liked and his comments about his doubts that she was wearing a bra and a blouse he liked and his experiences at a nude spa where he talked to a woman with a “beautiful body.”

The five-minute conversation was the last piece of evidence brought to the jury before the trial recessed on day one.

Day Two

Testimony from defendant

When questioned by defense attorney John Gaertner, Richard Martin offers his version of the incidents that occurred late last year, which include details that differ from the ones offered by the accuser. He denies ever groping the girl and says he only physically touched her once last year when he gave her a quick hug in a large closet where the band uniforms are kept. He says he did not attempt to grope or kiss her, as the accuser claimed. Martin denies he told her the number of intimate partners he has had, call it a “guessing game” the accuser could play and insert a number of her choosing, and said he never had an affair with a neighbor, as she claimed he told her. He also says that he never asked the girl to flash him.

The teacher admits he should not have had approximately four “absolutely unprofessional” conversations with the girl, which were personal in nature and contained sexual innuendoes, including the one recorded on Feb. 5.

However, according to the transcript of the conversation, when the girl asks Martin about him touching her breast, he denies it ever happened. This is a key piece in Gaertner’s case, as his client is heard saying “no” at least 11 times when she asks him about the incident in a conversation in which he did not know was being monitored.

Although he calls the inappropriate talks with the student “the most bone-headed thing I’ve ever done.” He maintains his innocence, saying, “Words are not deeds.”

Credibility questions

Witnesses for the defense include former and current students and Desert Vista parents who vouch for the trustworthiness and credibility of Martin, saying he is “like a grandpa” to them. Five witnesses testify that, although they don’t know her personally, the teenager has the reputation for not being a credible or very honest person. They say they’ve spoken with many students throughout the campus who have spoken about her lack of credibility.

For almost two hours, the girl sits in the back of the courtroom and sobs while listening to this testimony and while prosecutor Monica Gellman plays excerpts from the recorded conversation to defense witnesses. After hearing the tape, witnesses say their opinion of Martin has not changed. They say the former music teacher continues to receive strong support from the community.

Day Three

In their closing arguments, attorneys for both the prosecution and defense claim the police-recorded conversation proves their case. Prosecutor Monica Gellman contends words are not a crime, but they “can help indicate sexual intent…and they show the defendant’s intent – and that is a crime.”

She says that the confusion over which of Richard Martin’s hands supposedly touched the accuser’s breast doesn’t matter because “a touch is a touch.”

Gellman says Martin’s sexual comments and tone in his voice in the recording is “creepy, it will make your skin crawl,”

She maintains the accuser is credible and that the testimony by defense witnesses were based on rumor and not firsthand knowledge of the girl. Gellman reminds jurors that the victim had no motive to lie about what happened in fact she was hesitant to name Martin when she first talked abut the incident to school administrators.

Defense attorney John Gaertner reiterates to the jury that his client is heard repeatedly denying touching the accuser’s breast even though Martin didn’t know he was being tape-recorded.

Gaertner argues that innocence prompted Martin’s responses of “no” when the girl asked if he touched or remembered touching her. Gaertner also tells the jury that the confusion over which hand the girl said touched her does matter, and that the prosecution’s failure to reveal that prior to trial “should make your skin crawl. My client deserves a fair trial.”

Gaertner asks jurors to consider the accuser’s lack of credibility and then raised inconsistencies in her story. “My client screwed up by having that conversation,” Gaertner to jurors.

“But there’s a big difference between words and conduct.”